Re: [sidr] [Sidrops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8416 (7080)

Job Snijders <> Mon, 22 August 2022 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEFA6C152714 for <>; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i6h7FflWIZPR for <>; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E2B1C1526F3 for <>; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d6so3657159ilg.4 for <>; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=vtSFhUSxrd3N6pdiHMNL/NALda9oOZottR+0BzBizJY=; b=EXuEfvdAUoVU0RN0gUNfQEZCs5zvOjMmFl4BBz20oPcleGYfkc6+xnmwpzDVqaNc0o TIYutuFsCEMFlIxPVOtcwsNJmmvPJ/7efANkCtqf0cg4vemfHf78GkSsXeHrhZJAdW8U 46rOVXrd9AabI2d6qRvxubGtMN3Q9eLzxfJgo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=vtSFhUSxrd3N6pdiHMNL/NALda9oOZottR+0BzBizJY=; b=GT0Izc3nwiEFL2iE9bLkEgf64+uJuhFNqbz6UVCbk1Apg3BPONrB7/k8sl0AeVbv5g NgP4wLWZTz5G3dhOdHYeqvOttEZHGhWSJpudJDucNClySQJmCgj53u/uoVQzklLZDywL qXByKEjIjU29dHUT+MXuMcon0lYavN+TsJWZqGiyLy6mB0BHjtA/uSykVGihr69129v1 OLFiM2EH66e4CQPDcJqheS1rRBKF0vCO+JXFOwuTJc9B2ErtHxczSxDYS5chwdJYFHvH Wij/LcbPFMwVYFgysgb68OR2+k/oMtpwLcebaisNJHWG2AijcFYKL6Q8ayEefLDxkMUZ ifsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo00/NI0gff/dGqVLF9waOnhEvR4PKze/WPyoD7arz5nObKKLjCp vi9g/AqYos5fgFhMSxS542lZBY13lCfYFp2ASoMldA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR7A3qlJF3UcfxRkd1nUF4CZS/uUmHP1e+SWKqucU3yrn4QUEm03H5uTpXG/h8tlcHdUkFGBoAmITWf9yScRKnQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1b02:b0:2df:1d99:7714 with SMTP id i2-20020a056e021b0200b002df1d997714mr8838310ilv.217.1661158060165; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20220810212520.ateioe73xzawcldf@benm-laptop> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Job Snijders <>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:47:29 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Tim Bruijnzeels <>
Cc: Ben Maddison <>, Chris Morrow <>, RFC Errata System <>, SIDR Operations WG <>, Warren Kumari <>,,,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017a37305e6d080ec"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] [Sidrops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8416 (7080)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 08:47:44 -0000

Hi all,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 10:29, Tim Bruijnzeels <> wrote:

> Hi Warren, all,
> I (co-author) agree that this was an oversight. I have no objections to
> the change.
> However.. I haven't checked, but beware that current implementations might
> fail to parse the file if a "comment" member is added here, if they are
> (overly) strict. I expect that most will simply ignore this member. Perhaps
> it's wise that this is verified before finalising the errata.

A similar concern was expressed (in opposition of) tidying up a missing
constraint in ROA EE certificates:

I think the working group needs to decide on a few questions in both cases:

1) was it the intent to permit AS Resources / forbid Comments?
2) is any known running code going to fall over - if the errata is approved?
3) have there been ROAs / SLURM files in the observable universe which
would suddenly be “out-of-spec”, if the errata is approved?

Kind regards,